HAHNEMANNIAN CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASE-Communication with Ewald Stöteler

Dear Dr.Rajiv Abraham,

Thank you for your email. I will try to give you a little insight in my experience with Homeopathy of Samuel Hahnemann.
In the beginning of Hahnemann’s homeopathic practice every disease was treated as an entity within itself, as a matter of fact*, as an acute disease. During the early years of homeopathy there were only remedies from the plant and animal kingdom.

The experiences in practise taught Hahnemann that this approach did not cure chronic disease. As he writes in ‘the Chronic diseases’* ‘The beginning was promising, continued treatment disappointing and the outcome hopeless’.

From the year 1816 onward he developed *the philosophy on the chronic diseases and the remedies that fitted this philosophy.
He published the first edition on the Chronic diseases and the theory on the miasms in the year 1828.
Togeteher with the philosophy on the miasmatic endogenous disease disturbances he developed a totally new group of remedies that were indicated in the chronic diseaseforms, the mineral remedies.
In the first publication of the Chronic diseases there were only 14 remedies published. 12 mineral remedies, Lycopodium and Sepia were described. *Lycopodium and Sepia are called an exception by Hahnemann on the rule of using minerals in the treatment of chronic diseases.

So, according to Hahnemann the more or less acute diseases caused by exogenous causes are to be treated by plant- and animal remedies and sometimes by the use of nosodes.
These acute disease forms are primarily : Incidents, epidemics, and the acute miasmatic diseases.

The diseases caused by the endogenous miasmatic disturbed dynamis are to be cured by mineral remedies. (The antipsoric, antisyphilitic etc.)
In these cases the vital force itself is diseased, the natural law of action/reaction is disturbed and therefore the vital force can not create a new healthy balance. It takes a mineral remedy to cure this chronic disease on a permanent basis.


Furthermore we have the nosodes which are indicated when a certain disease has not effectively been cured by the dynamis. As a result a chronic state arises which can be transferred to the next generation.
In the nosodes we find the possibility to neutralise the underlying inherited pathological tendencies. Hahnemann only had Psorinum at his disposal and had not enough life time left to work to enhance this topic further. We owe a lot of respect to a group of English homeopath’s, mainly Compton Burnett in this matter as he developed the indications and use of nosodes further.

So the Hahnemannian approach creates a very clear hierarchy in the remedy groups to be prescribed in the different diseaseforms.

For the treatment of incidents and epidemics we primarily use remedies of plant and animal origin an just now and then nosodes.
For the treatment of the chronic psoric state we primarily use remedies of mineral origine (as our body consists mainly of water and minerals).
The inherited pathological tendencies are to be treated with the use of the indicated nosodes.
For the iatrogenic diseases we primarily use the intercurrent remedies or sometimes the tautopathic.
For the treatment of manifest sycosis we primarily use Thuja, Nit.ac, and/or Medhorrhinum.
And for the treatment of manifest syphilis we primarily use Mercury or eventually Syphilinum.

The basic miasmatic disturbances are Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis.
The tubercular and carcinogenic tendenscies are complexes based or grown out of the basic ones.
So we determine the tubercular diathesis as a contamination between sycosis first and secondly syphilis.
The Carcinogenic pathological tendency is primarily bases on the syphilitic miasm and second on the sycotic miasm. (Other homeopaths might think otherwise.
Psora, in these complex miasmatic situations is the underlying deepest, and slowest in acting, miasmatic tendency.
The classification gives us a very clear practical, consistent and effective tool in practice, and this approach can be very clearly taught. In Holland a growing number of Homeopaths work along these lines.

This Hahnemannian approach gives us clear indications for interpretation of the symptoms of the patient. It also creates quite a different insight in the materia medica.

Symptoms that can be explained from the life circumstances of the patient are to be considdered as of exogenous cause and aren not constitutional symptoms. Therefore plant or animal remedies indicated are indicated for their cure .
Symptoms that cannot be explained from the lifecircumstances are arissen fron internal causes and therefor endogenous, miasmatic or constitutional and need a mineral remedy or possibly, in case of inherited pathological tendencies, a nosode

Using the disease classification of Hahnemann is gives you a very clear indication about the disease form you have to treat first and which is to be followed. It also make is easy to differentiate between the different symptoms of the patient.
The psoric state is the deepest disturbance and to be treated by the use of mineral remedies when the more superficial disease and the inherited pathological tendencies are already neutralized and cured.
So the prescription of a mineral remedy should most preferable be preceded by the prescription of a remedy from plant or animal origin, or a nosode.
These remedie groups are more or less the servants of the dynamus in prepairing for the prescription of a complementary deep acting mineral antipsoric remedies.
Prescribing in the correct order of importance mostly prohibits the occurrence of homeopathic aggravations.

At the moment we are working together with RADAR on extended software in the ‘Stöteler module’ to support this approach as it is far from complete.
My book ‘Understanding Hahnemann’ will be released in German within days from now.

I realize that my response might raise a few questions. Please do not hesitate to let me know.

Please do forgive me my poor English expression.


Warm regards,

Ewald Stöteler.